Nice quote and true. I wonder if HHDL's twitter stream is updated by him personally? Or is it someone from his office pulling quotes from his books?

The Blessed One said:

"What is the All? Simply the eye & forms, ear & sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations, intellect & ideas. This, monks, is called the All. Anyone who would say, 'Repudiating this All, I will describe another,' if questioned on what exactly might be the grounds for his statement, would be unable to explain, and furthermore, would be put to grief. Why? Because it lies beyond range." Sabba Sutta.

"My faith enjoins me to strive for the welfare and benefit of all sentient beings. I am confident that it is both possible and worthwhile to attempt a new secular approach to universal ethics. My confidence comes from my conviction that all of us, all human beings; are basically inclined or disposed toward what we percieve to be good...In the view of this, I am of the firm opinion that we have within our grasp a way, and a means, to ground inner values without contradicting any religion and yet, cruciallly, without depending on religion".

That's the hard question. There is not an exact 1:1 correspondence between 'dharma' and 'religion' in my view. They correspond in some respects and differ in others. The problem is the 'culture wars' in the West have become so divisive and so emotive that you can't see the flame for the smoke. As soon as you mention anything that even sounds 'religious' to a lot of people, it's shields up, attack mode. I think HH is trying to move the issue out of that zone.

Learn to do good, refrain from evil, purify the mind ~ this is the teaching of the Buddhas

"But, what does he mean by "religion", "spirituality" and "ethics", exactly?

Buddhadharma.

Plugging that into the quote: "I am increasingly convinced that the time has come to find a way of thinking about spirituality and ethics beyond religion altogether."

"I am increasingly convinced that the time has come to find a way of thinking about Buddhadharma beyond Buddhadharma altogether." ??

I know that is not what you mean, I'm just kidding!

But, my question is still there. In the end, a few words aside, what is actually meant by this? Or are we just exchanging one word for another word, putting the old wine into new bottles, so to speak?

I was just wondering if this is kind of psychological thing. We have some words expressing ideas, but somehow, within those ideally positive and wholesome words and ideas, something evil and nasty has crept in. But, not willing to fully face the problem, we bifurcate the idea now into two words - we put the good stuff into a new word, and jettison the nasty stuff into the older, original word. Linguistically at least, we have purged ourselves of the evil, and are now safe and pure.

One could possibly suggest other examples throughout the history of Buddhist thought, or other religious (!) thought, political thought, etc. whereby we do the same thing. Purging words of negative connotations, in order to uphold a kind of sacred religious terminology, freed of evil.

Okay, enough blather from me, I'm off to teach my classes of the semester, huzzah!

jeeprs wrote:That doesn't really come to terms with why the Dalai Lama wants to move beyond religion, or why there is so much controversy over religious ideas in the modern world, though.

Having read one of his books on this theme some time back, it seems he found doctrine & views the main source of acrimony between & among religions. Therefore, a focus on common ethical values is the less contentious, more brotherly way to go. Even the motive for being compassionate, for example, is not examined or questioned. Whether one expresses compassion from wanting to please God or follow Jesus' example or because the Koran or Torah says so, is not relevant. It is also another source for argument - so never mind value motives.

Secondly, all paths have a beneficent Ideal or Source, whether transcendent, immanent, both or neither (in the case of secularists), therefore our personality is not the end all & be all. Again, never mind the nature of the Ideal or Source - too likely to foster quarrels.

The subtle clinging I am a buddhist, from the point of view of Buddhism is just clinging and cannot be freedom. As then there is an imagined line drawn between two concepts. We shouldn't reject religion or hold on "ours" which is grounded in delusion, a base for quarrel. As Buddhist we then just cling.

Christians, Muslim... brothers and sisters; we can see eachother at least as brothers and sisters interdependent from eachother.

Its all about daily etics; His Holiness says to imply mutual tolerance and respect for all faiths as well for those of no faith. Then mind is not so easely guided by destructive emotions but more in understanding, mindfulness.

Regarding Dzogchen is that no problem I suppose? Since without opinions or own ideas, nature is not dividing or clinging to labels and no need to delete them neither. No drawing of imagined lines is possible in nondual and all others cannot be "out" (and we in nature). A wise loves ALL without any separation or judgement. Since all is own nondual nature/Mind.

Dalai Lama has been pointed out his nature and understand clearly. From that action is naturally for the sake of all.

jeeprs wrote:That doesn't really come to terms with why the Dalai Lama wants to move beyond religion, or why there is so much controversy over religious ideas in the modern world, though.

there is much controversy over religious ideas because people cling to their positions thinking that they are permanent and unchangeable since their suffering and inner turmoil.Beyond this is nature.That which is always the same.